alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit

No. 97-60631 Summary Calendar

HARRY NELSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi

May 13, 1998 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 1

Harry Nelson appeals the district court’s judgment affirming

the Commissioner o f Social Security’s decision to terminate

Nelson’s disabili ty benefits. Nelson contends that the

Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) violated the rule in Stone v.

Heckler

, 752 F.2d 1099 (5th Cir. 1985). The ALJ, however,

implicitly found Nelson’s impairment to be severe when he

considered steps seven and eight in t he sequential analysis.2

Reyes v. Sullivan

, 915 F.2d 151, 153-54 (5th Cir. 1991); see also

,

Griego v. Sullivan

, 940 F.2d 942, 944 n.1 (5th Cir. 1991) (setting

out the sequential analysis). Thus, the ALJ did not violate

Stone ’s rule.

Nelson also argues that the ALJ did not properly consider

either his own testimony or the vocational expert’s. Had the ALJ

done so, he would have found Nelson to be permanently and totally

disabled. The record, however, contains substantial evidence

supporting the ALJ’s findings. S ee Richardson v. Perales

, 402 U.S.

389, 390 (1971).

Nelson’s final contention is that the ALJ failed to develop a

full and fair record. This issue, however, has not been exhausted

because Nelson did not present it to the Appeals Council. Thus, we

have no jurisdiction over this issue. S ee Paul v. Shalala

, 29 F.3d

208, 210 (5th Cir. 1994).

AFFIRMED.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel Unsolicited K24 Application.                    

*Date:*                         October 3, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         4 p.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Rockledge 6700, 6700B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817. (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Quirijn Vos, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, NIAID/NIH/DHHS, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-2666,                         *qvos@niaid.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 29, 2007.

Anna Snouffer,

Deputy Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-4389 Filed 9-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### The First National Bank of Batavia, Respondent, v. Horatio N. Ege and others, Appellants.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered bofore another referee, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Barker, J.
From: Tod Hegstrom [mailto:tod.hegstrom@gmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 4:10 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33

Proposed Annuitization Of 401(k)

Not acceptable!
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-10576

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

KESHONNA S. HUNNICUTT-LEFTRICK, also known as Keshonna Shundaire

Hunnicutt,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:09-CR-222-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The attorney appointed to represent Keshonna S. Hunnicutt-Leftrick has

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Hunnicutt-Leftrick has not filed a response.

Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 15, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-10576 Document: 00511382224 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2011
No. 10-10576

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 10-10576 Document: 00511382224 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/15/2011
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 13, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51664

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

IVAN MENDOZA-CHAVEZ, also known as Daniel

Quirarte, also known as Jesus Cabrera-Montalvo,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-1427-1

--------------------

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Ivan MendozaChavez raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8

U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate

criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance

is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1




              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements 
(Forms S-8 No. 33-81930 and 33-32374, and Form S-3 No. 33-85508) of our report 
dated February 8, 1996 with respect to the 1994 and 1995 consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Computer Identics Corporation included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1995.


                                                  /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

                                                  Ernst & Young LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 25, 1996
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE

In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of JACQUELINE A. WORTHAM ,

Petitioner

. )

) ) ) ) ) No. 37529

- 3

- III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION
S TAAB , J.

— In 2009 , 1 8

- year
- old Jacquelin e Wortham pleaded guilty to first degree murder for killing her father. The court imposed a low

- end standard

- range sentence of 22 years. In 2020, Ms. Wortham filed a personal restraint petition, seeking resentencing under State v. Houston

- Sconiers , 188 W n.2d 1, 21, 391 P.3d 409 (2017). The State concedes that Ms. Wortham’s petition falls under an exception to the

one
- year time bar because Houston

- Sconiers is retroactively applicable. In re Pers.
Restraint of Ali , 196 Wn.2d 220, 233, 474 P.3d 507 (2020 ), cert. denied sub nom

. Washington v. Ali , 141 S. Ct. 1754 (2021). The State also concedes that Ms. Wortham has demonstrated actual and substantial prejudice because the trial court did not recognize its discretion to impose a sentence below the standard range. In re Pers.
Restraint of Domingo

- Cornelio , 196 Wn.2d 255, 474 P.3d 524 (2020), cert. denied sub

nom . Washington v. Domingo

- Cornelio , 141 S. Ct. 1753 (2021). 

### FILED AUGUST 3 , 2021 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division IIINo. 37529

- 3

- III

In re Pers. Restraint of Wortham

2 Based on our own review of Ms. Wortham’s petition, and the State’s concessions, we grant the personal restrain petition and remand to the Superior Court for resentencing. A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.0 40.

_________________________________ Staab , J.
WE CONCUR:

_________________________________ Fearing, J.

_________________________________ Lawrence

- Berrey , J.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 204 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                  House Calendar No. 57
107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 204

                          [Report No. 107-149]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 2216) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
           ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 19, 2001

   Mrs. Myrick, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 2216) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
           ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
2216) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2001, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
the conference report and against its consideration are waived. The 
conference report shall be considered as read.

                                                  House Calendar No. 57

107th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 204

                          [Report No. 107-149]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
bill (H.R. 2216) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year 
           ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             July 19, 2001

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 4601

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. DARREN GERARD MCKEE , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 1:11

- cr - 00154

- NCT

- 1 )

Submitted : April 27, 2021 Decided: April 30, 2021

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
James B. Craven, III , Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Sandra J

. Hairston, Acting U nited S tates Attorney , Michael F

. Joseph, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Darren Gerard McKee appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his term of supervised release and s entencing him to 7 months in prison , followed by a 14

- year term of supervised release . McKee contends that the district court did not adequately consider his arguments for a lesser term of imprisonment. We affirm. “A district court has broad discretion when imposing a sentence upon revocation of supervised release. [We] will affirm a revocation sentence if it is within the statutory maximum and is not plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Patterson , 957 F.3d 426, 436 (4th Cir. 2020). “When reviewing whether a revocation sentence is plainly unreasonable, we must first determine whether it is unreasonable at all.” United States v. Thompson , 595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010). “A revocation sentence is procedurally reasonable if the district court ad equately explains the chosen sentence after considering the Sentencing Guidelines’ nonbinding Chapter Seven policy statements and the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Slappy , 872 F.3d 202, 207 (4th Cir. 2017) (footnotes and citati on omitted); see 18 U.S.C. § 3583(c) (listing § 3553(a) factors relevant to revocation sentences). A sentence is substantively reasonable if the district court states a proper basis for concluding that the defendant should receive the sentence imposed, up to the statutory maximum. United
States v. Cru dup , 461 F.3d 433, 440 (4th Cir. 2006). A sentence within the applicable policy statement range is presumed reasonable. United States v. Padgett , 788 F.3d 37 0 , 373 (4th Cir. 2015). Applying these standards, we conclude that McKee’s 7

- month3 sentence

— with in the applicable 4

- to 10

- month policy statement range

— is neither procedurally nor substantively unreasonable. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
----

----

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND **

**CHIEF      FINANCIAL OFFICER**

|   | By:    | /s/                Claire C. Skinner                                                                                                                           |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Claire                C. Skinner                                                                                                                               |
|   |   | Chairman                of the Board and Chief Executive Officer                                                                                               |
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                           |
|   | By:    | /s/                Richard M. Lavers                                                                                                                           |
|   |   | Richard                M. Lavers                                                                                                                               |
|   |   | Executive                Vice President, General Counsel And                Secretary, Chief Financial Officer and Chief                Administrative Officer |

----

----
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. LEW I S LEE SETTLES, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 10- 50087 D. C . No . 2 : 0 8 - c r - 0 0 5 6 4 - OD W ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia O t i s D . W r i ght , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J anuary17, 2012 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , T A L L M A N , an dC A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L ew i s L ee S ett l es appeal s f rom the 18 0-m on th agg re gat e s ent ence i m po se d f o llo w in g h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n s f o rd ru g a n df

ir e arm c r im e s . P u r s u an t to A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 38 6 U . S . 73 8 (19 67 ), S ett l es ’ s c ou nselhas f i l ed a bri ef 

# FI LED JAN 23 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSA p p e llan t’s D e c e m b e r3 0 , 2 0 1 1 , m o tio n r e q u e s tin g le a v e to f ile la te 1 s up p le m e n ta l e x c e rp ts o f r e c o r dis G R A N T E D . T h e C le rkis d ir e c te dto f ile S e tt l e s ’ s s uppl e m e nt a l e xc e rpt s of r e c or d r e c e i ve d on D e c e m be r14, 2011. 10- 50087 2 st at i ng there ar e no g roun ds for r el i ef , al on g w i th a m ot i on t o w i thd raw as coun se l o f reco rd . W e h av e p ro v i d edth e ap p el l an tw i th th e o p p o rtu n i ty t o fi l e a p ro se supp l em ent albri ef

. N o p ro se supp l em ent albri ef or answ er i ng bri ef

has bee n f i l e d. O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o a r g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. A cco rd i n g l y, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , and the di stri ct co u rt ’ s j u d g m en ti s AF F I RME D. 1
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 215

Honoring the Colorado Wing of the Civil Air Patrol.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JULY 30, 2001

Mr. TANCREDO (for himself, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. SCHAFFER, Mr. MCINNIS, Mr.

UDALL of Colorado, and Ms. DEGETTE) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION

Honoring the Colorado Wing of the Civil Air Patrol.

Whereas the Colorado Wing of the Civil Air Patrol was established in 1941 as a component of the Civil Air Patrol, to

conduct air and ground searches for downed or missing

airplanes, hunters, hikers, and others in Colorado;

Whereas the largest nongovernmental and noncommercial

communications system in Colorado is operated and

maintained by the Colorado Wing of the Civil Air Patrol;

Whereas the Colorado Wing of the Civil Air Patrol is comprised of more than 1,900 unpaid volunteer members, including approximately 800 cadets and 1,100 senior members, and operates 14 Civil Air Patrol airplanes and nearly 50 member owned airplanes in its air search and rescue missions;
2

•HRES 215 IH

Whereas the Colorado Wing of the Civil Air Patrol safely flew

1,216 of the 6,629 air search and rescue hours flown nationally by the Civil Air Patrol during fiscal year 2000

and was credited with saving the lives of 15 of the 64

people found nationwide by the Civil Air Patrol;

Whereas the Colorado Wing of the Civil Air Patrol participated in 36 Air Force-operated search and rescue missions and responded to 157 other missions around Colorado;

Whereas the Colorado Wing of the Civil Air Patrol safely,

successfully, and responsibly flew Civil Air Patrol airplanes for over 3,400 hours in fiscal year 2000, averaging 243 hours per aircraft; and

Whereas the Colorado Wing of the Civil Air Patrol holds annual camps to train cadets in ground search and rescue

field and emergency skills, along with leadership skills

and self-discipline: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes the Colorado Wing of the Civil Air Patrol for its

3 tireless efforts and exemplary service to the State of Colo4 rado and to the Nation.

Æ
#### Francis G. Hall, Respondent, v. The Tioga National Bank of Owego, Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Hardin, P. J.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 183 (Friday, September 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 54085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4703]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF GOVERNORS


Sunshine Act Meeting

Dates and Times: Monday, September 24, 2007, at 9 a.m.; Tuesday, 
September 25, 2007, at 12:30 p.m.; and Wednesday, September 26, 2007, 
at 8:30 a.m.

Places: Potomac, Maryland, at the Bolger Center, 9600 Newbridge Drive; 
and Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant 
Plaza, SW., in the Benjamin Franklin Room.

Status: September 24--9 a.m.-Closed; September 25--12:30 p.m.-Closed; 
September 26--8:30 a.m.-Open.

Matters to be Considered

Monday, September 24 at 9 a.m. (Closed) at Bolger Center

    1. Strategic Issues.
    2. Financial Update.
    3. Fiscal Year 2008 Integrated Financial Plan Briefing.
    4. Office of Inspector General Fiscal Year 2008 Budget.
    5. Rate Case Update.
    6. Labor Negotiations Update.
    7. Personnel Matters and Compensation Issues.
    8. Governors' Executive Session--Discussion of prior agenda items 
and Board Governance.

Tuesday, September 25 at 12:30 p.m. (Closed) at USPS Headquarters

    1. Continuation of Monday's closed session agenda.

Wednesday, September 26 at 8:30 a.m. (Open) at USPS Headquarters

    1. Minutes of Previous Meeting, August 7-8, 2007.
    2. Remarks of the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board.
    3. Remarks of the Postmaster General and CEO Jack Potter.
    4. Committee Reports.
    5. Board of Governors Calendar Year 2008 and 2009 Schedule.
    6. Office of the Governors Fiscal Year 2008 Budget.
    7. Postal Regulatory Commission Fiscal Year 2008 Budget.
    8. Consideration of Fiscal Year 2008 Operating and Capital Plans--
FY 2008 Integrated Financial Plan.
    9. Tentative Fiscal Year 2009 Appropriation Request.
    10. Capital Investments.
    a. Perris, California, Delivery Distribution Center.
    b. Miami, Florida, Mail Processing Facility.
    11. Tentative Agenda for the November 14-15, 2007, meeting in 
Washington, DC.

Contact Person for More Information: Wendy A. Hocking, Esq., Secretary 
of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, 
DC 20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.

Wendy A. Hocking,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-4703 Filed 9-18-07; 4:28 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-M